Skip to main content

A Fuzzy Contrast Model to Measure Semantic Similarity Between OWL DL Concepts

  • Conference paper
Book cover Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery (FSKD 2006)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNAI,volume 4223))

Included in the following conference series:

  • 1604 Accesses

Abstract

On the basis of psychological studies about similarity, we propose a model, called the fuzzy contrast model, to measure the semantic similarity between concepts expressed by OWL DL. By transforming an OWL DL concept to a set of axioms in description logic \(\mathcal {S}\mathcal {H}\mathcal {O}\mathcal {I}\mathcal {N}(\mathcal {D})\), the fuzzy contrast model computes the similarity of concepts from their semantic descriptions in \(\mathcal {S}\mathcal {H}\mathcal {O}\mathcal {I}\mathcal {N}(\mathcal {D})\). In order to imitate human perception of sameness and difference, fuzzy set is introduced to built intersection and set difference of feature set in our model. An iterative method is proposed to compute the similarity of concepts. Two experimental results are provided to show the effectiveness of fuzzy contrast model.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Wu, Z., Palmer, M.: Verb Semantics and Lexical Selection. In: Proceedings of 32nd Annual Meeting of Association for Computational Linguistics, Las Cruces, New Mexico, pp. 133–138 (1994)

    Google Scholar 

  2. Song, J., Zhang, W., Xiao, W., et al.: Ontology-based Information Retrieval Model for the Semantic Web. In: Proceedings of 2005 IEEE International Conference on e-Technology, e-Commerce and e-Service, Hong Kong, China, pp. 152–155 (2005)

    Google Scholar 

  3. Resnik, P.: Using Information Content to Evaluate Semantic Similarity in a Taxonomy. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pp. 448–453. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1995)

    Google Scholar 

  4. Church, K.W., Hanks, P.: Word Association Norms, Mutual Information, and Lexicography. In: Proceedings of the 27th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, Vancouver, B.C., pp. 76–83 (1989)

    Google Scholar 

  5. Lesk, M.: Automatic Sense Disambiguation using Machine Readable Dictionaries: How to Tell a Pine Cone from an Ice Cream Cone. In: Proceedings of the 5th Annual International Conference on Systems Documentation, Toronto, Canada, pp. 24–26 (1986)

    Google Scholar 

  6. Santini, S., Jain, R.: Similarity Measures. IEEE Transactions on Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence 21(9), 871–883 (1999)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Attneave, F.: Dimensions of Similarity. American Journal of Psychology 63, 516–556 (1950)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Ashby, F.G., Perrin, N.A.: Toward a Unified Theory of Similarity and Recognition. Psychological Review 95(1), 124–150 (1988)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Rosh, E.: Cognitive Reference Points. Cognitive Psychology 7, 532–547 (1975)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Rothkopf, E.Z.: A Measure of Stimulus Similarity and Errors in Some Paired-Associate Learning Tasks. Journal of Experimental Psychology 53, 4–101 (1957)

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tversky, A.: Features of Similarity. Psychological Review 84(4), 327–352 (1977)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Tversky, A., Gati, I.: Studies of Similarity. In: Rosch, E., Lloyd, B.B. (eds.) Cognition and Categorization, pp. 79–98. Lawrence Eribaum Associates, New York (1978)

    Google Scholar 

  13. Rodriguez, A.M., Egenhofer, J.M.: Determining Semantic Similarity among Entity Classes from Different Ontologies. IEEE Transactions on Knowledge and Data Engineering 15(2), 442–456 (2003)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Horrocks, I., Patel-Schneider, P.F.: Reducing OWL Entailment to Description Logic Satisfiability. In: Proceedings of the 2003 International Semantic Web Conference, Berlin, German, pp. 17–29 (2003)

    Google Scholar 

  15. Baader, F., McGuinness, D.L., Nardi, D., et al. (eds.): The Description Logic Handbook: Theory, Implementation and Applications. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (2002)

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2006 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Qiu, M., Chen, G., Dong, J. (2006). A Fuzzy Contrast Model to Measure Semantic Similarity Between OWL DL Concepts. In: Wang, L., Jiao, L., Shi, G., Li, X., Liu, J. (eds) Fuzzy Systems and Knowledge Discovery. FSKD 2006. Lecture Notes in Computer Science(), vol 4223. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/11881599_119

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/11881599_119

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-45916-3

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-45917-0

  • eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics